Matrixston Wow! Such a good movie.

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

GarnettTeenage The film was still a fun one that will make you laugh and have you leaving the theater feeling like you just stole something valuable and got away with it.

ThedevilChoose When a movie has you begging for it to end not even half way through it's pure crap. We've all seen this movie and this characters millions of times, nothing new in it. Don't waste your time.

meaninglessname This film is the life story of mega-wealthy Horace Vendig, as told in flashbacks at a party he's throwing in his own honor at his palatial estate. In these we see that he has attained his success by lying and cheating, betraying his partners and trampling on everyone who does him a good turn. He views the women in his life as trophies or stepping stones, and the general public as sheep to be fleeced.For once, director Ulmer had enough money for some production values. Zachary Scott as Vendig is properly cold-blooded, Louis Hayward stalwart as the one friend finally disgusted and betrayed, and the rest of the cast, including bigger names than Ulmer usually could afford, is excellent,. The only problem with the movie is imagining an America populated by people supine and simple-minded enough to allow such an ogre to rise to the top.

filmalamosa This movie is sort of a bargain basement Citizen Kane. It follows the life of an ambitious opportunist who takes after women who can do him the most good. One flaw here is that Zachary Scott is not a credible womanizer--he is just not sexy or handsome enough.The movie lags and drags until Greenfield appears with his wife-- here the biggest deficit in the movie also occurs. Greenfield plays Buck Mansfield a predatory corrupt rich Southern business tycoon/plantation owner---he is perfect in the role over weight etc.. But neither him nor his wife have anything remotely resembling a Southern Accent which would have really cemented the roles--and seems like something so easy to correct. Maybe because Ulmer was foreign he didn't realize this powerful bedrock of Americana.And of course Hollywood can never let a bad guy get away--damn it.Another flaw = the props are too cheap looking. In fact, the first time I started watching it, I stopped after about 10 minutes because of this. This movie also fails as it tries to copy Citizen Kane cinematography with long black and white shadows etc...the items filmed that way were things like fake chandlers--almost like a parody.With more money...and some tuning and recasting this could have been a great classic.Still RECOMMEND--

secondtake Ruthless (1948)A great, layered melodrama, with flashbacks and male and female rivalries and a really strong narrative thread. There are a bunch of interesting actors at work who never had huge careers, the main man being familiar to me from "Mildred Pierce" two years earlier, Zacharay Scott. The director, though, is a favorite noir director of mine, Edgar Ulmer, who had a string of great films in the late 1940s. So this is one of them, though not quite a noir.In fact, this is a kind of financiers movie, which isn't actually a genre thank God. But the weakest part of the film (at least for a non-Wall Street viewer) is a lot of talk about business deals. Luckily, you don't need to follow them to the letter, because it's the characters--their tricks, their greed, their games--who make it come alive. And of course there are women involved (compelling ones like Diana Lynn), and memories of a childhood girlfriend, so we feel something for the good friend of the leading capitalist male, and even for Sydney Greenstreet, who plays an aging businessman, even amusing.The whole enterprise gets fairly involved and makes you pay attention, which is good, and leads to a pretty spectacular last scene off the pier.

dougdoepke With a name like "Vendig" and an actor like Zachary Scott, you know who's ruthless without seeing the movie. Actually, the character here is an allegorical one, standing for the barracuda side of capitalism. Old Vendig doesn't give a darn who he steps on or how many "little people" he ruins in his relentless drive for power and riches. It's a heckuva climb up the proverbial ladder, told in occasional flashback that fills in the personal stories and motivations.It's also a great cast, Scott at his most arrogant, Lynn at her sweetest, Hayward at his most likable, and of course Greenstreet at his most Greenstreet. Too bad we don't get a scene between him and the equally corpulent Raymond Burr with its interesting possibilities. This is the impressive Greenstreet's most emotional and perhaps most pitiable role, especially when he looks forlornly into the mirror. Then too, in that last scene, he's almost like a berserk rhino and just as scary.The message here has been sharpened, I expect, by uncredited leftist writer Alvah Bessie. Except I don't take it as an attack on capitalism per-se— after all, Hayward's Lambdin wants to build things like the symbolism of bridges, but is undercut by his power-mad partner Vendig. Instead, I take Vendig as a 40's version of 1987's Wall Street where Gordon Gekko's barracuda claims that "greed is good". Likely, the movie's message would resonate with today's audiences who've also been taught a lesson by Wall Street's destructive side.Anyway, it's a darkly riveting morality tale that gets the most out of its modest budget thanks to a shrewd cast and expert direction from cult director Edgar Ulmer. My only complaint echoes that of another reviewer— the gap between nice boy Vendig and the power-mad adult is not properly filled in; then again, maybe it's because of poor editing. Nonetheless, what a nice bit of irony in the ending. Bad adult Vendig drowns where good boy from years earlier survived. In short, the ruthless adult has misused the opportunities earned by his earlier heroic act, and so, must return full circle to the water to right the wrongs. At the same time, the deserving Lambdin finally ends up with his beloved Martha, even if it's through her look-alike Mallory (which is why Lynn plays both parts). So things straighten out after all. All in all, it's a fine, under-rated movie, even if a rather bitter brew.